"He is victorious who knows when and when not to fight."
                -- Sun Tzu

Author Topic: Far Cry 2 game - Spoilers, but a discussion of the concept of chivalry within it  (Read 9169 times)

Sir James A

  • Weapons & Armor addict
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,043
I finished playing Far Cry 2 a few weeks ago. I saw my brother play Far Cry 3 a few times, and the game play was different and interesting enough for me to play a First Person Shooter again for the first time in years. Plus, part 2 was only $10 on Steam. However, nothing in the bits and pieces of the story from 3 that I saw stood out as anything beyond the normal FPS "shoot this, blow up that, rescue person" and I didn't expect much more than a chance to refine my sniper skills which are woefully, years out of practice. :D

That is, until I finished the game. And thought about it. And read a few things online that expanded into my questions. Holy cow, this is a DEEP game mentally, for something where you just run around shooting people constantly... this is a really long post, in part to explain the story line, and in part for discussing the intrinsic theme....

You're a mercenary hired to kill a guy who is supplying weapons to two different factions in a war in Africa ("The Jackal"). He sells to both sides to maximize his profits, of course, and to keep the war going as long as he can. That's his business, after all. Or that's what you're told. However, the very first twist happens at the beginning of the game; you get malaria, end up bedridden, and the guy you are hired to kill talks smack to you, then buries a machete into the wall right behind you, sparing your life ... and then leaves. Embarrassing, the guy you are hired to kill could have killed you and just walks away.

In order to get medicine for the malaria, you have to do missions for an underground group at the church, as the medicine is scarce. It involves "liberating" people by killing enemies, and providing travel documents for them to flee the country. That is only to get medicine to keep your malaria in check; in order to get at the guy you're trying to kill, you start doing under cover missions for one side of the war. Including the usual assassinations, burning resources, blowing up things - general type of requests you'd expect in a game of this nature. Shortly into the game, you're "playing both sides" and killing people from the same groups who are paying you to kill people in the other groups. Since it's all covert, both factions actively try to kill you except in the "cease fire" areas where you can get new missions. You are, quite literally, biting the hands that feed you.

At certain parts throughout the game, The Jackal continues to mock you. He says you are coming after him because he's arming people and adding to the war; yet, your pursuit of him and the trail of bodies you leave leads both sides to continue the war against each other, as both factions the other faction is responsible. He tells you that you are no better than him... but, do you believe him?

You make allies, who will rescue you if you are "killed". They'll pick you back up, give you a weapon, give you medical care, and they'll start going after your attackers. They will help you with missions. Sometimes ask you for help with theirs. Then, after you've made some good allies, at one point, you get some "inside" information of a hostile takeover and you have to both rescue the priest from the church who is sending you to the secret underground groups for medicine, or rescue your allies. No time to do both, as both are in imminent danger. I chose to go back and defend my allies. Per the story, infinite wave of assailants until you die or run out of ammo and then die.. at which point your allies are dead and you're thrown on a truck full of dead bodies. Except you're barely alive, and bounce out of the truck in the desert, as your dead allies in the back of the truck roll off into the distance. You're alone, seriously injured, unarmed, and stumble to a nearby shack before passing out - before the Jackal comes back, yet again, to taunt you mercilessly. This guy hates you, but won't kill you. It's strange.

The country essentially gets overrun to the point where neither side has control any longer, and they all start to flee. Both factions have lost their control and are overwhelmed. You have to work against the government to try to smuggle out some of those that you used to work for. Things are too far gone now, there's been a complete societal collapse. Someone tells you where you can find some diamonds in order to pay the guards to let you sneak some people out of the country, including yourself. You head to the area, then are surprised to see the allies you made earlier. Huzzah, some help! Except they ALL try to kill you. They want to claim the bounty on you, since you are now infamous due to prior events. No friendship, no loyalty, they're a hired gun, just like you, to the highest bidder.

After killing all your allies, you find The Jackal - and in a huge twist, head off to do a mission together. In order to safely evacuate some of the people, you have to make a coordinated assault in two different places; but both things will end up with you both dying. He asks you if you are willing to help him, and which of the two things you prefer. He tells how he began his time there in the same way you did; a mercenary wanting to put an end to the war, and how similar the two of you really are. You learn that this wasn't a "good guys and bad guys" life. It's greed. You killed to make money. Money that people pay you with, that they earned by killing others or stealing from them. The "friends" who turned on you for money. The people you killed to make money; the same money you use to buy more weapons from black market dealers who steal them from The Jackal, so that you can keep killing more people to get to The Jackal himself.

Think about it. You're not any kind of hero. Are you even a good person? You made allies, then killed them all when they tried to kill you. The one purpose you went there for, to kill The Jackal, you don't even accomplish. You let him walk off to his part of the mission, and he'll die in the process under his own terms. Not because you killed him, not because you forced him, but, because he wants to - and for a noble cause too.

In the end, you both profited heavily from the war. He made his money by selling arms, you made your money by using those arms to kill countless people. People not inherently good or bad, people simply pulling the trigger for the highest bidder. Just. Like. You.

So, you both manage to get some people out of the country, and you both die in the process. One of the memorable lines is when The Jackal tells you it doesn't matter who dies doing what, because "neither of us deserve to live through this".

You begin the game thinking, this is a bad guy, my job is to kill him, and restore peace and order to the country. But there's always someone who steps up to replace them. And in fact, twice, you kill the leader of a faction, who is simply replaced and a new leader steps in to continue waging war. By the end of the game, you've killed, in an ultra minimum stealth game, probably 100 people. I think I killed at least 1,000+ (there's no actual stats to track it).

The big moral and chivalry question of it all is ... if you have the blood of 100+ people on your hands to try to restore peace and order to a country - and the 100+ people you killed have the same goal of peace and order as you do - are you any better or worse than they are?

Is your course of action somehow more chivalrous than theirs, even though you share the same end results (albeit different methods)? Does it not make you a target for others to want to kill, perpetuating the conflict?

When the hunter becomes the hunted, are you any less of a monster than those you killed, believing them to be wrong? Are you morally superior for doing the same thing, because you believe it's for a higher purpose?

Did you pursue taking down The Jackal out of purely financial motives, out of desire to bring order to the chaos, or for pure vengeance?
Knight, Order of the Marshal
Sable, a chevron between three lions statant Argent

Sir Edward

  • Forum Admin
  • Commander of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,340
  • Verum et Honorem.
    • ed.toton.org

Huh, interesting. It does bring some depth and philosophical thought to an otherwise action oriented game. I love when they manage to pull that off. :)
Sir Ed T. Toton III
Knight Commander, Order of the Marshal

( Personal Site | My Facebook )

Aiden of Oreland

  • Squire of the Order
  • Forum Acolyte
  • ***
  • Posts: 926
  • Let faith be my shield and let joy be my steed
What a lot of people don't relize is the concept and art involved in some games. As I tell my folks, "there is more to my games then just violence" and usually why I play the campaign before multiplayer. One of the reasons I like Assassin's Creed so much.
-"I raise not the sword, but the shield."-Aiden Max

Sir William

  • Cogito ergo sum
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,154
Yea, I love Assassin's Creed, the first one especially because that question was at the heart of the matter.  I don't know that I've had such an in-depth moment of discovery a la Sir James (I tend not to overthink things so even when I notice what's going on, it's more of a 'oh look, that happened' rather than 'I just did that, am I a bad person' type of a thing) but I notice things from time to time.  Since I tend to play as myself, that is, I make the decisions I would normally make if it were me in a given situation, rather than go full-on maniac assault simply because you can, although I'll admit that the guards in AC were more-than-willing pells for my burgeoning prowess.

I like that the games these days have more to them than the what used to be termed the usual; in fact, one of my most memorable gaming moments came in a game that featured very primitive mechanics and was largely story and character driven - The Walking Dead, by Tell Tale Games.  I liked how the choices you made determined the course of the game in certain aspects, as well as how your fellow survivors viewed and reacted to you.  Anti-gamers would tell you to just go outside and live a life but come on, we already do- gaming's about doing things you couldn't ordinarily do.

GTA has always been a guilty pleasure of mine, the latest installment just expounds on the conventions it first brought to gaming ten years ago and made them great.  A lot of people frown on this game because its one of the few out there where you can literally do almost anything - whether it be scuba or deep sea diving, sky diving, learning how to fly a plane and/or helicopter, learn how to shoot guns, all kinds, participate in races- street, water, off-road - you can even go hunting.  HUNTING.  Help out an old friend and do some bounty hunting.  Or check out a movie, or just have your character sit at home, watch tv.  Do yoga.  Start a fight.  Go auto-bowling, see how many pedestrians you can run down before the cops stop you.  Abduct hitchhikers and take them to a cannibalistic cult for money.  Search for UFO parts.  Become an associate producer of a movie-making enterprise...and see your name in the credits once editing is complete.

But even in this game, you'll find yourself at moments questioning the morality of what you've just done...or at least I do.  I think its important that something like this occurs for the gamer...it breaks the immersion and forces them to consider what they're doing and hopefully remember that it is just a game and things like that shouldn't be done in real life.

I think I'll pick up Far Cry 2...it sounds like a great deal more fun than I gave it credit for when I first read about it.
The Black Knight, Order of the Marshal
'Per Pale Azure and Sable, a Chevron counterchanged fimbriated argent.' 
“Pride makes a man, it drives him, it is the shield wall around his reputation.  Men die, but reputation does not.â€

Sir Edward

  • Forum Admin
  • Commander of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,340
  • Verum et Honorem.
    • ed.toton.org
I'm glad to hear there's a general trend of developing deeper stories in a lot of these games in general.

That's one of the things that blew me away in the Mass Effect trilogy. Played as a trilogy, with save-game imports, your choices and decisions add up, and major characters can live or die based on your choices, or even entire races at one point. The story has an amazing amount of depth, character development, and emotional impact by the time you complete the trilogy. There's a theme of sacrifice and desperation, and friendship and cooperation, that runs through it, as well as "deep time". It's still mostly an action game, but with the story unfolding in cinematic cutscenes as well.
« Last Edit: 2013-11-07, 16:15:30 by Sir Edward »
Sir Ed T. Toton III
Knight Commander, Order of the Marshal

( Personal Site | My Facebook )

Sir William

  • Cogito ergo sum
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,154
I don't know that I'm ready to deal with that amount of responsibility- even if it is pixellated.  Its one thing to see one die from my direct action, quite another to know entire segments of living beings can die because I made the wrong choice!  This is why I'd be a poor choice for any sort of grand leadership role.  I still haven't gotten around to trying it yet...and maybe I'm just not in the right frame of mind for that sort of morality blast.  I mean, I'm planning heists and such now in GTA V, but its against crooked federal agents and bad guys in general.  I think I'm a bad guy trying to do a good thing. 
The Black Knight, Order of the Marshal
'Per Pale Azure and Sable, a Chevron counterchanged fimbriated argent.' 
“Pride makes a man, it drives him, it is the shield wall around his reputation.  Men die, but reputation does not.â€

Sir Douglas

  • Artificer of Stuff and Things
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Acolyte
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
  • In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
Man, I have to start playing some newer video games....sounds like I'm missing some really good stuff. :o

I don't know that I'm ready to deal with that amount of responsibility- even if it is pixellated.  Its one thing to see one die from my direct action, quite another to know entire segments of living beings can die because I made the wrong choice!  This is why I'd be a poor choice for any sort of grand leadership role.  I still haven't gotten around to trying it yet...and maybe I'm just not in the right frame of mind for that sort of morality blast.  I mean, I'm planning heists and such now in GTA V, but its against crooked federal agents and bad guys in general.  I think I'm a bad guy trying to do a good thing. 

I actually have a pretty hard time with "morality choices" in some games as well. Like, for instance, the Elder Scrolls series. You could basically just play the game by sneaking around, breaking into houses, stealing stuff, and flat out murdering NPCs. Even though I know it's just a video game and it's a chance to just blow off some steam and do things I know I shouldn't or can't do in real life, I still have a hard time justifying it. I, too, tend to play my characters as myself, and it just feels weird doing something I wouldn't do in real life. The main exception is if a quest or mission calls for it, because it usually doesn't give you other options, and I'd still like to be able to progress through a game. Though I've avoided entire questlines before because of my own moral inhibitions (i.e. the Dark Brotherhood).

Oddly, though, I set up a character in Skyrim that was specifically made to do all the bad stuff that I had avoided on my other characters and I had a lot of fun with him. He even had his own little journal series that I wrote based on his adventures in-game. It was still weird, though, and I often had a hard time finding ways to get into trouble. I couldn't just break into someone's house willy-nilly and clean out all of their valuables; I needed a reason to do it.

It's funny. I prefer open-world, sandbox-like games because they usually give you the option to just goof around and do whatever you want, yet I still tend to play the good guy. I sort of have to start slow and work myself up mentally before I can start playing a flat-out bad dude.
Per pale azure and argent, an eagle displayed per pale argent and sable, armed and langued or.

So a Norman, a Saxon, and a Viking walk into England....

Sir James A

  • Weapons & Armor addict
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,043
Huh, interesting. It does bring some depth and philosophical thought to an otherwise action oriented game. I love when they manage to pull that off. :)

It was quite the unexpected surprise. Sort of like how the Mass Effect 3 story sounded.

Yea, I love Assassin's Creed, the first one especially because that question was at the heart of the matter.

HUGE Assassin's Creed fan - own and beat them all, up until pirates took over in 4. I even have the assassin logo on my car, and I have some of the clothing. :)

I don't know that I've had such an in-depth moment of discovery a la Sir James (I tend not to overthink things so even when I notice what's going on, it's more of a 'oh look, that happened' rather than 'I just did that, am I a bad person' type of a thing) but I notice things from time to time.

That's where this was pretty cool... in the game, The Jackal pushes your buttons by repeatedly telling you that you aren't any different from him. It's made out to be very obvious, or I would have missed it too. :D

I think I'll pick up Far Cry 2...it sounds like a great deal more fun than I gave it credit for when I first read about it.

Definitely do, it's very worth the $10 price tag. Even with the spoilers, it doesn't ruin the fun. I know the end of 3, and I'm still going to play it start to finish.
Knight, Order of the Marshal
Sable, a chevron between three lions statant Argent

Sir William

  • Cogito ergo sum
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,154
I actually have a pretty hard time with "morality choices" in some games as well. Like, for instance, the Elder Scrolls series. You could basically just play the game by sneaking around, breaking into houses, stealing stuff, and flat out murdering NPCs. Even though I know it's just a video game and it's a chance to just blow off some steam and do things I know I shouldn't or can't do in real life, I still have a hard time justifying it. I, too, tend to play my characters as myself, and it just feels weird doing something I wouldn't do in real life. The main exception is if a quest or mission calls for it, because it usually doesn't give you other options, and I'd still like to be able to progress through a game. Though I've avoided entire questlines before because of my own moral inhibitions (i.e. the Dark Brotherhood).

Oddly, though, I set up a character in Skyrim that was specifically made to do all the bad stuff that I had avoided on my other characters and I had a lot of fun with him. He even had his own little journal series that I wrote based on his adventures in-game. It was still weird, though, and I often had a hard time finding ways to get into trouble. I couldn't just break into someone's house willy-nilly and clean out all of their valuables; I needed a reason to do it.

It's funny. I prefer open-world, sandbox-like games because they usually give you the option to just goof around and do whatever you want, yet I still tend to play the good guy. I sort of have to start slow and work myself up mentally before I can start playing a flat-out bad dude.

I know what you mean; although I did join the Dark Brotherhood and completed it and thoroughly enjoyed it that was my one caveat to the whole morality thing.  I wanted the really cool outfit and so, I did them.  Not to mention, some of the methods you use to dispatch your targets were kind of fun in their own way.  I often wondered, beside the first kill you have to do (three blindfolded victims in chairs, you have to kill one of them- or the quest giver which kills the quest overall if you do) how innocent are the rest?  I figured, its a rough time to live in, a rough life to live- these things do happen.  That, of course, did backfire on me - in the Hearthfire DLC, I was prohibited from buying land in a certain Hold because I'd slain the ruler's steward and he held a grudge against me (understandably) so I was unable to get the Landowner achievement.  Really loved ES Skyrim, I logged nearly 900 hours between the two gamesaves I have....300 on the PS3, then when I found out they weren't getting the DLC, I bought it for the 360 and went hog wild on it.  I only stopped playing because of that glitch- in the quest line to acquire Daedric artifacts, the Mace of Molag Bol is basically unattainable; that is, you can complete the quest so long as you don't go for it, otherwise once you acquire it, the game basically freezes.  Every time.  I got so frustrated I actually popped in Saints Row 3 and went on a killing spree- but those things aren't really like people so I didn't feel badly about it.  lol

You know what's funny about when I play that game?  I invariably resort to archery before I close in with hand-weapons; when I do close the gap, its always with a singlehand sword and shield.

Sir James, I'm with you on AC til 3...I got right up til Connor reaches adulthood and I found that I did not enjoy the game at all so I stopped playing it.  Might've been the setting (I have zero interest in any age after the advent and widespread use of gunpowder) - I thoroughly enjoyed the earlier installments, in fact, I 100%'d the first two just because I couldn't get enough of it.  Riding through the Holy Land on horseback, taking on entire squadrons of knights and men-at-arms and defeating them...it didn't get any better than that for me.  I liked the Italian and Mediterranean (sp) settings of the 3rd and 4th installments but the first two were my favorite, with the first one being the ultimate for me.  It was during the Crusades, the Templars looked like what I expected, the armor, the weapons- did I mention excellent horseback riding mechanics?  Unlike in ES where the horses were more like plodders than runners and fighting from horseback was hit or miss...still, a nice addition to the game.

I might see if I can dl FC2 in the near future; I'm far from done with GTA V.
The Black Knight, Order of the Marshal
'Per Pale Azure and Sable, a Chevron counterchanged fimbriated argent.' 
“Pride makes a man, it drives him, it is the shield wall around his reputation.  Men die, but reputation does not.â€

Sir Edward

  • Forum Admin
  • Commander of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,340
  • Verum et Honorem.
    • ed.toton.org
(Sir William just ninja'd me... lol.. stupid phone calls while typing)

I used to prefer open sandbox games too, but nowadays I have less time to devote to the games, so I like a more predictable story path. Mass Effect satisfied all of those interests since it had a definite beginning, middle, and end, and yet most of the time you had a choice of what order to do things in, skip (or not) various optional content, and of course make moral choices along the way.

But yeah, I usually play the good-guy as best I can. There's definitely something to be said about playing a bad-guy when given the opportunity, since you can blow off steam and do things you would never do in reality. There's nothing wrong with that. But for me, it's an opportunity to be the hero. I want to be better than I am in reality. And when I do take a bad-guy choices, it makes me feel dirty.

What was interesting is that in Mass Effect 3, the game reported statistics back to the developers about the choices that people made, and they found that almost exactly 2/3 of the players went with the "paragon" path, and 1/3 with the "renegade" path.

You earn paragon/renegade points based on choices, with "renegade" not really being a "bad guy" so much as just being a sarcastic d-bag, mean to people, and taking the greater-good choices over the compassionate ones, but still the hero. Technically you can't really go wrong. If you take the paragon choices all the time, you'll generally save as many people as you can, as long as you don't skip key optional content.

« Last Edit: 2013-11-07, 20:38:31 by Sir Edward »
Sir Ed T. Toton III
Knight Commander, Order of the Marshal

( Personal Site | My Facebook )

Sir Douglas

  • Artificer of Stuff and Things
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Acolyte
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
  • In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
Yeah, I went through both the Dark Brotherhood and the Thieves' Guild lines on my "bad" character. They were actually a lot of fun. Though I found the method for gaining access to the Brotherhood questline a little hard to justify. So I have to murder a grumpy old lady just because some ten-year-old kid told me to? But I guess that's the point: if you're willing to do that, then you'll fit right in with the Brotherhood's happy family.

But yeah, I usually play the good-guy as best I can. There's definitely something to be said about playing a bad-guy when given the opportunity, since you can blow off steam and do things you would never do in reality. There's nothing wrong with that. But for me, it's an opportunity to be the hero. I want to be better than I am in reality. And when I do take a bad-guy choices, it makes me feel dirty.

This, right here. I admit, GTA is a guilty pleasure of mine as well (I've only ever played San Andreas), and while sometimes it is indeed incredibly satisfying to just go around doing stupid things and crashing cars and running over pedestrians with a go-kart, I feel guilty afterwards. It sort of works on my conscience a little bit. Of course, I realize that it's just a game, so that doesn't stop me from having an incredibly good time, but I also know that - woah, this kind of stuff is not cool to do in real life, and there are consequences if you do. Again, I sort of have to build up a mindset for doing deliberately bad things in a game, and that's any game. Frankly, more of my time in GTA is spent exploring the world and driving around in cool cars than it is engaging in illegal activities. Well, okay, so I do tend to break the speed limit....a lot. ;)

But yeah, I sort of see gaming as chance to live out some of my own fantasies. I'll never actually go into space, so I'll play some sci-fi games and live vicariously through them. In my mind, I'm still me more than I am whomever my avatar may be, so I still tend to act how I would act in that situation, but at a sort of superhuman level. I bet a psychologist could have a field day studying all of my eccentricities when it comes to gaming....lol

I might have to pick up the first AC one day. I've only ever seen a little bit of the game play, and I think the whole "genetic memory" concept kind of turned me off. It seemed a little..weird. Probably would make more sense if I played the game from the start. Despite that, the time-frame and game world of the first one sounds right up my alley. By now, I could probably get it really cheap for my PS3.
Per pale azure and argent, an eagle displayed per pale argent and sable, armed and langued or.

So a Norman, a Saxon, and a Viking walk into England....

Sir William

  • Cogito ergo sum
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,154
Douglas, I have to say that the Animus stuff is a bit off-putting; if you ask me, they could've done w/out all of that and just made a period piece and I would've been even more happier.  I didn't care for the main character who is reliving his ancestors' memories; he always came off as a whiny d-bag until I considered what they were putting him through.  Since I can get whiny when overwhelmed, who am I to judge?  I'm the actual player, that's who!  lol  But seriously, the first one was IT for me...but I've always had a thing for the Crusades and being smack dab in the middle of the 3rd Crusade and actually encountering the Lionheart was just too cool.

As for GTA...this latest iteration has the lowest kill counts for me than any of the previous installments...in IV, I used to hole up in the crappy lil studio you have to run off to when you piss off the Russians and have to skip town for a bit; the entrance had a vestibule which ended up being the most absolute chokepoint you could possibly ask for- I just posted up behind the interior entryway and as the cops stormed the front door, I'd pick'm off with blind-firing...the distance was less  than ten feet, you couldn't miss!  In retrospect, I didn't feel too bad- those idiots kept tryin to come thru the front door!  Once in a while, the AI would smarten up and try to come in thru the rear, but all I'd do is retreat up the staircase and hit'm from the second landing.  When I started bouncing grenades off the walls to careen into the spot where they were all huddled it got sort of ridiculous (as if the whole thing wasn't already).

Anyway, in V they act more realistic, the dialog's much more varied- to the point they seem more like people than walking targets.  I actually go out of my way to avoid pedestrians or horrific full-on collisions...I suppose I should feel bad for taking down the armored security vans but they're only carrying dirty money anyway so they're criminals too, right?  lol

Gaming is just that, gaming- a vicarious thrill, a chance to be something I never will- be it a planetary savior, or the world's worst possible despot.  I usually opt for the former as even as a bad guy I sort of suck.  Bad guys don't have attacks of conscience but I do- so I won't do women or children.
The Black Knight, Order of the Marshal
'Per Pale Azure and Sable, a Chevron counterchanged fimbriated argent.' 
“Pride makes a man, it drives him, it is the shield wall around his reputation.  Men die, but reputation does not.â€

Aiden of Oreland

  • Squire of the Order
  • Forum Acolyte
  • ***
  • Posts: 926
  • Let faith be my shield and let joy be my steed
I am a major fan of the Elder Scrolls series myself. I started with Oblivion, which I can say had more fun with than Skyrim, but Morrowind is a good game to after you get the hang of it. But I usually make the stereotypical character. Sword and shield, heavy armor, good guy. I never kill unless I have to. For the assassins guild or "Dark brotherhood" I do the quests that defeat and destroy the assassins. Ya know, When I played through dawn guard(Is it sad that I found the all the dlc stories to be better than the main one) I felt so much guilt when I had to kill the second to last snow elf elf. Which turned into the falmer. Which most know the suffix "mer" means elf. But anyway, when the Nords came over to the continent of Tamriel they were peaceful. But they were reproducing quikly in the eyes of the snow elves. So the snow elves went to kill them but the nords proved to be more than mere primates. Nords won and took the land of the snow elves. The snow elves look to the dwremer (dwarves) for help and shelter. The dwremer said yes if they can take away the eye sight of the snow elves. Most said yes, but a few said no. Do to the blindness and the abuse of the dwremer, they became known as the falmer. A dark and evil creater of the depths of Skyrim. 1 of the snow elves turned evil(a vampire) and let the falmer come and slay the remaining snow elves. 2 snow elves remained. Two brothers. 1 good and one bad. You are forced o kill the evil one and realize that you just put the species of what once used to be a proud and civilized race of elves to extinction. Leaving one left. But the last one noticed an increase of intelligence in the Falmer. So he plans to spend the rest of his life to teach them that they used to be a proud race. Turn them into what they used to be.
  On that note. Any one play fable? I think the first one is the best. And they are remastering it! Fable 2 was ok, but fable 3 was sad. The evil side wasn't even evil, just childish.
-"I raise not the sword, but the shield."-Aiden Max

Sir James A

  • Weapons & Armor addict
  • Knight of the Order
  • Forum Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,043
While it's an odd concept, the animus is what ties all of the prior AC games together into a cohesive series.

Sir William, if you haven't finished AC:3, when you are done with GTA:V, dust off AC:3 and finish it up. The story line comes together very nicely in the end, and Desmond, the animus, and the modern day assassins and templars are a key part in it all.

AC:3 is MUCH better after the first or second sequence when you are finally an adult and get your assassin gear (Sequence 6, maybe 7?). You get into firing squads, aerial assassinations with bayonets, sprinting assassinations, corner kills, and some generally epic combat things in the most versatile combat engine in the series (note: haven't played IV yet). I had some truly wicked battles later in AC:3. Oh, and the "assault a fort" takedowns, where you have to literally take over a fort, solo, and capture it. I loved doing those!

And to see how utterly phenomenal Connor's dual-wielding combat skills and general awesomeness become, with plenty of two-person finisher combos:
*** STOP at 3:30 if you don't want a MAJOR Connor spoiler ***



AC:3 had, by far, the slowest work up to being a serious force to contend with. Once you get over that hump, it's a good game. I'm not thrilled with the time period setting either, but, the combat alone carries a lot of it. There are also some fun modern day scenes as Desmond, which to me, never happened in the games before AC:3. Playing as Haytham at the beginning was fun, but, once playing as Connor, it really felt like "work" to get through a lot of it until later. First time that happened in the series for me.. but I'm glad I stuck with it and finished it.
Knight, Order of the Marshal
Sable, a chevron between three lions statant Argent